(22-06-2016 11:04 AM)adey67 Wrote: Point taken but my point is that even taking these heredity peers into account the vast majority are political life peers encompassing a broad spectrum of political views its not perfect but neither is the U.S.congress or senate some of those positions are family dynasties where election is a forgone conclusion pretty much.

Actually not so much, very few seats are 100% on lockdown and even those tend to move on once the holder dies/retires rather than pass down to their kid. Strom Thurmond held a senate seat from roughly 5 minutes before the big bang to 2003 yet his seat went to Lindsey Graham not one of his children. The Kennedy's are a political dynasty but they tend to be spread out rather than lock down 1 position over generations. Our problem is the Parties tend to hold onto seats due to Redistricting and Gerrymandering rather than a single family holds it.

Hell Rev I'm learning shit here, thanks for the heads up on that. Perhaps a better way of putting my point across is that whether or not you have one political belief or another whether you are a royalist like myself or a republican like mathilda or an American republican or democrat that all politicians are to my mind shit encrusted wankers and its a question of choosing the least shit encrusted bitch to represent you which is highly subjective and everyone has their own favourite shit encrusted scumbag and as long as you can vote out a shit spattered bastard that's fine but the European commission isn't an elected body....hell I think I changed to brexit, thanks guys.

(22-06-2016 11:18 AM)Revenant77x Wrote: Actually not so much, very few seats are 100% on lockdown and even those tend to move on once the holder dies/retires rather than pass down to their kid. Strom Thurmond held a senate seat from roughly 5 minutes before the big bang to 2003 yet his seat went to Lindsey Graham not one of his children. The Kennedy's are a political dynasty but they tend to be spread out rather than lock down 1 position over generations. Our problem is the Parties tend to hold onto seats due to Redistricting and Gerrymandering rather than a single family holds it.

Hell Rev I'm learning shit here, thanks for the heads up on that. Perhaps a better way of putting my point across is that whether or not you have one political system or another whether you are a royalist like myself or a republican like mathilda or an American republican or democrat that all politicians are to my mind shit encrusted wankers and its a question of choosing the least shit encrusted bitch to represent you which is highly subjective and everyone has their own favourite shit encrusted scumbag and as long as you can vote out a shit spattered bastard that's fine but the European commission isn't an elected body....hell I think I changed to brexit, thanks guys.

It's your vote so pick your poison. I was more raising a point that has always struck me as funny. Republicans (those favoring a republic not the American political party) always harp on about the Queen but for me the House of Lords is by far the bigger affront. The Queen is a figurehead, you guys dust her off to wave at parades and the like not really harmful as the Monarchies powers have been shifted to the Prime Minister's position. The house of Lords though just offends me at a base level that in 2016 you still have a portion of government made up of non-elected legislators whose only claim to power is whose vagina they slide out of. Even if it is not a majority of that house it is still something that raises my hackles.

As to the EU Exit vote a Yes is going to greatly reduce Britain's political and economic power in the near to middle term and No vote will reduce it in the middle to long term but probably not as much. Plus a Yes Vote almost certainly leads to Scottish Independence and then rejoining the EU which will further weaken the UK. I don't know which is worse long term but remaining in the EU is the safer vote and probably will win the day much as the Stay vote did in the Scottish Exit vote.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote: America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense

(22-06-2016 11:44 AM)adey67 Wrote: Hell Rev I'm learning shit here, thanks for the heads up on that. Perhaps a better way of putting my point across is that whether or not you have one political system or another whether you are a royalist like myself or a republican like mathilda or an American republican or democrat that all politicians are to my mind shit encrusted wankers and its a question of choosing the least shit encrusted bitch to represent you which is highly subjective and everyone has their own favourite shit encrusted scumbag and as long as you can vote out a shit spattered bastard that's fine but the European commission isn't an elected body....hell I think I changed to brexit, thanks guys.

It's your vote so pick your poison. I was more raising a point that has always struck me as funny. Republicans (those favoring a republic not the American political party) always harp on about the Queen but for me the House of Lords is by far the bigger affront. The Queen is a figurehead, you guys dust her off to wave at parades and the like not really harmful as the Monarchies powers have been shifted to the Prime Minister's position. The house of Lords though just offends me at a base level that in 2016 you still have a portion of government made up of non-elected legislators whose only claim to power is whose vagina they slide out of. Even if it is not a majority of that house it is still something that raises my hackles.

As to the EU Exit vote a Yes is going to greatly reduce Britain's political and economic power in the near to middle term and No vote will reduce it in the middle to long term but probably not as much. Plus a Yes Vote almost certainly leads to Scottish Independence and then rejoining the EU which will further weaken the UK. I don't know which is worse long term but remaining in the EU is the safer vote and probably will win the day much as the Stay vote did in the Scottish Exit vote.

I agree with you that remain will definitely win, watching a debate right now and I am confused one or other of the sides is lying imho. I can see you're point regarding the house of Lords but I unashamedly support our sovereign.

(22-06-2016 10:45 AM)ClydeLee Wrote: Still rotating the same, soverngty and tradition are values to uphold.. because. I guess because they've existed before as ways. Still can't quite get over how that's often just assumed on its own sake of merrit

Sovereignty is basically freedom on a national/state level. Do you think that the value of that should be questioned?

This quote by D.H. Lawrence came to my mind

“Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools. And their grandchildren are once more slaves.”

(22-06-2016 10:45 AM)ClydeLee Wrote: Still rotating the same, soverngty and tradition are values to uphold.. because. I guess because they've existed before as ways. Still can't quite get over how that's often just assumed on its own sake of merrit

Sovereignty is basically freedom on a national/state level. Do you think that the value of that should be questioned?

This quote by D.H. Lawrence came to my mind

“Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools. And their grandchildren are once more slaves.”

A state exists to provide an ordered society. Why the hell people set such great store by dividing up various geographical regions into different governments or think this limits their freedom in some way I have no idea. If there was a single EU superstate, what of it? All it means is there's a central federal administration. What's so great about insisting on regional governments?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette

(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote: And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.

(22-06-2016 03:45 PM)morondog Wrote: A state exists to provide an ordered society. Why the hell people set such great store by dividing up various geographical regions into different governments or think this limits their freedom in some way I have no idea. If there was a single EU superstate, what of it? All it means is there's a central federal administration. What's so great about insisting on regional governments?

Tradition?
Accountability?
Tribalism?
Xenophobia?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(22-06-2016 12:06 PM)Revenant77x Wrote: I was more raising a point that has always struck me as funny. Republicans (those favoring a republic not the American political party) always harp on about the Queen but for me the House of Lords is by far the bigger affront. The Queen is a figurehead, you guys dust her off to wave at parades and the like not really harmful as the Monarchies powers have been shifted to the Prime Minister's position. The house of Lords though just offends me at a base level that in 2016 you still have a portion of government made up of non-elected legislators whose only claim to power is whose vagina they slide out of. Even if it is not a majority of that house it is still something that raises my hackles.

The Queen is more often mentioned than the House of Lords because it's difficult to find someone who disagrees that we should get rid of them. Although funnily enough we still have them! Yet many people do get taken in by the Queen and the Royal family so this is the biggest point of contention.

You're right though that the Queen is the figurehead. She epitomises the whole establishment which is the cause of the obsession with class in the UK. Not that it's about snobbery so much as class has real world consequences because the UK is not a meritocracy. I'd say that the working and middle class have kind of merged into one. Or as I like to say, we now only have two classes, the working class and the parasitic class.

The politicians, business leaders, the media, even science, it's all part of the establishment which only promotes the careers of 'people like us'. I think the moment this really hit home for me was a documentary about the Bullingdon club, an all male dining club at Oxford University which is full of odious behaviour of very rich people who later enter positions of power.

At the end of the documentary it was mentioned how David Cameron got a job at Tory HQ and before an interview, they received a phone call from someone at Buckingham Palace recommending him (probably his uncle made the call). Boris Johnson on the other hand, his first job was as a graduate trainee at The Times newspaper. How many thousands of students, more talented and more qualified, would have been far suited for those jobs but didn't have the connections to recommend them?

My brother went to a public school (in the UK we call expensive private schools public schools, for historical reasons). I went to a state school. I now realise that the point of sending a child to one of those schools isn't for them to get better grades so much as to condition them to fit into a certain class and to make the connections that will keep them above the level of peon.

And it's not like these people are even grateful about being given opportunities regardless of their talent. They expect it. They have a sense of entitlement that goes along with it, a them and us mentality. That's what I realised that public schools instilled in students. Read about how the upper class officers sent hundreds of thousands of men to their slaughter during World War I without regard for the human cost for example. It's the same mentality as being exercised by the Tories in the way the disabled, or the young for example.

It all starts to make sense if you understand that it is embedded in a culture that has existed unbroken since feudal times. The Queen is the head of the snake that needs to be cut off.

(22-06-2016 12:06 PM)Revenant77x Wrote: I was more raising a point that has always struck me as funny. Republicans (those favoring a republic not the American political party) always harp on about the Queen but for me the House of Lords is by far the bigger affront. The Queen is a figurehead, you guys dust her off to wave at parades and the like not really harmful as the Monarchies powers have been shifted to the Prime Minister's position. The house of Lords though just offends me at a base level that in 2016 you still have a portion of government made up of non-elected legislators whose only claim to power is whose vagina they slide out of. Even if it is not a majority of that house it is still something that raises my hackles.

The Queen is more often mentioned than the House of Lords because it's difficult to find someone who disagrees that we should get rid of them. Although funnily enough we still have them! Yet many people do get taken in by the Queen and the Royal family so this is the biggest point of contention.

You're right though that the Queen is the figurehead. She epitomises the whole establishment which is the cause of the obsession with class in the UK. Not that it's about snobbery so much as class has real world consequences because the UK is not a meritocracy. I'd say that the working and middle class have kind of merged into one. Or as I like to say, we now only have two classes, the working class and the parasitic class.

The politicians, business leaders, the media, even science, it's all part of the establishment which only promotes the careers of 'people like us'. I think the moment this really hit home for me was a documentary about the Bullingdon club, an all male dining club at Oxford University which is full of odious behaviour of very rich people who later enter positions of power.

At the end of the documentary it was mentioned how David Cameron got a job at Tory HQ and before an interview, they received a phone call from someone at Buckingham Palace recommending him (probably his uncle made the call). Boris Johnson on the other hand, his first job was as a graduate trainee at The Times newspaper. How many thousands of students, more talented and more qualified, would have been far suited for those jobs but didn't have the connections to recommend them?

My brother went to a public school (in the UK we call expensive private schools public schools, for historical reasons). I went to a state school. I now realise that the point of sending a child to one of those schools isn't for them to get better grades so much as to condition them to fit into a certain class and to make the connections that will keep them above the level of peon.

And it's not like these people are even grateful about being given opportunities regardless of their talent. They expect it. They have a sense of entitlement that goes along with it, a them and us mentality. That's what I realised that public schools instilled in students. Read about how the upper class officers sent hundreds of thousands of men to their slaughter during World War I without regard for the human cost for example. It's the same mentality as being exercised by the Tories in the way the disabled, or the young for example.

It all starts to make sense if you understand that it is embedded in a culture that has existed unbroken since feudal times. The Queen is the head of the snake that needs to be cut off.

That is by far and away the single best argument against the Monarchy I have seen. As an American I am more or less neutral when it comes to the Queen of England, doesn't effect me I don't give a fuck just keep her spawn off my tv we won a war to not have to care what goes into or comes out of Kate Middleton's vagina. Most of the arguments resent the average person's taxes paying for the Monarchies existence and the easy response is they bring in more revenue to the country than the draw so it is a net positive from that standpoint.

However as part of an overall reformation of the class system in the UK (something which is a problem) I can see a need for it. I still don't really care one way or the other, but that mainly has to do with it not actually being any of my business.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote: America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense